A major breakthrough

[Pierre]

How does one leave "clear communications for one person" by mistake?

Not "by mistake". The communications were very well planned.

But by taking the risk of communicating and thinking no one would understand the communications, someone did understand them.

[Elamarna]

Absolutely. He left clear communications for one person.

Since they were directed towards one person, the police did not understand them.

so why not say who the one person is?

Now we have two you refuse to name.


However you were more than happy to accuse Anderson, Swanson and MM of committing a criminal offence by perverting the course of justice, real double standards!!

steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;395852]

Didn't you just post the killer made mistakes, if you knowthis, then you must already have the sources to back up such a claim.

Yes.

The post i am replying to says nothing new, gives no information and just more of the empty promises.

Seriously my friend enough is enough!

I repeat the offer I made yesterday, discuss it with me in private, let me do some basic peer review, none will be told what you say.

I am a man of my word.

steve

And people are generally good, aren´t they?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Not "by mistake". The communications were very well planned.

I see.

Perhaps I should remind you of what has happened in this thread:

Pierre: The killer made mistakes.

Geddy2112: Name one please.

Pierre: Absolutely. He left clear communications for one person.

David Orsam: How does one leave "clear communications for one person" by mistake?

Pierre: Not "by mistake". The communications were very well planned.

Do you see the problem?

[Pierre]

so why not say who the one person is?

Now we have two you refuse to name.

However you were more than happy to accuse Anderson, Swanson and MM of committing a criminal offence by perverting the course of justice, real double standards!!

steve

So I will not mention names. But there is a source. The source shows that someone within the police knew who the killer was. It is not at all the type of source you would expect.

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

I see.

Perhaps I should remind you of what has happened in this thread:

Pierre: The killer made mistakes.

Geddy2112: Name one please.

Pierre: Absolutely. He left clear communications for one person.

David Orsam: How does one leave "clear communications for one person" by mistake?

Pierre: Not "by mistake". The communications were very well planned.

Do you see the problem?

It's what happens when you make rubbish up as you go.

[Pierre]

I see.

Perhaps I should remind you of what has happened in this thread:

Pierre: The killer made mistakes.

Geddy2112: Name one please.

Pierre: Absolutely. He left clear communications for one person.

David Orsam: How does one leave "clear communications for one person" by mistake?

Pierre: Not "by mistake". The communications were very well planned.

Do you see the problem?

No. Good night.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;395856]

Yes.



And people are generally good, aren´t they?

Regards, Pierre

In my view yes.

A scientist should not be scared of sharing their work unless their goal is purely finicial, you have hinted that is not an issue for you am i correct?

so why not trust and share?

or is the truth you cannot share what does not exist.


anyway the offer is genuine and still holds.

steve

[David Orsam]

So I will not mention names. But there is a source. The source shows that someone within the police knew who the killer was. It is not at all the type of source you would expect.

A "source" that you have quite obviously misunderstood.

It's that simple.

[Elamarna]

So I will not mention names. But there is a source. The source shows that someone within the police knew who the killer was. It is not at all the type of source you would expect.

Regards, Pierre

Then name the source?

[David Orsam]

No. Good night.

So, let's update the conversation:

Pierre: The killer made mistakes.

Geddy2112: Name one please.

Pierre: Absolutely. He left clear communications for one person.

David Orsam: How does one leave "clear communications for one person" by mistake?

Pierre: Not "by mistake". The communications were very well planned.

David Orsam: Do you see the problem?

Pierre: No.

[John G]

"We want to be told". I bet you do.

But as I have said, you will know when it is finished.

I don't!

[John G]

What?

I have my degrees within the field of history and the social sciences. How come you think you can give this false information about me in this forum, John?

I do not accept that. I have told everyone here what my degrees are, and you are not in any position to put words in my mouth. Stop it.

As for the rest you write here: it is obvious to me that you know nothing about it. If you do, please give relevant references.

Pierre

Well, I think you once stated you had several degrees, without being specific. And from memory, you first stated that you had a sociology degree, and when I suggested that a history degree would be more relevant, you said something like, "relax, I've got one of those too!"

I bet you have! Anyway, that hardly qualifies you as an academic historian, now does it?

[GUT]

What?

I have my degrees within the field of history and the social sciences. How come you think you can give this false information about me in this forum, John?

I do not accept that. I have told everyone here what my degrees are, and you are not in any position to put words in my mouth. Stop it.

As for the rest you write here: it is obvious to me that you know nothing about it. If you do, please give relevant references.

Pierre

Did they strip the science degree you had when you first lobbed.

[GUT]

So I will not mention names. But there is a source. The source shows that someone within the police knew who the killer was. It is not at all the type of source you would expect.

Regards, Pierre

Must be chilli then, I'd never have expected chilli, I'd expect tomato or BBQ.

Well I suspect thems the only sauces Pierre has